 |
|
Abstract Acceptance and Blinded Peer Review—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: We believe that the absence of a direct assessment and comparison of the quality of all submitted research abstracts is not a critical limitation of our study. Variations in overall submission abstract quality could have confounded our results if either the quality of categorized abstracts submitted was significantly different during blinded review than during open review or there were significant changes in the proportion of categorized abstracts submitted during each peer review period. However, because our sample consisted of large numbers of abstracts examined over a short study period, quality variations within categories of submitted abstracts during each peer review period are likely to be negligible. Therefore, for variation in abstract quality to explain our findings, there would need to be meaningful variations in the proportion of submitted abstracts among categories during each peer review period.
We examined this issue and determined that the proportion of submitted abstracts . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Joseph S. Ross, MD;
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM
harlan.krumholz@yale.edu
Department of Internal Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Conn
RELATED ARTICLES
Abstract Acceptance and Blinded Peer Review
Matthew E. Falagas
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1230.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Joseph S. Ross, Cary P. Gross, Mayur M. Desai, Yuling Hong, Augustus O. Grant, Stephen R. Daniels, Vladimir C. Hachinski, Raymond J. Gibbons, Timothy J. Gardner, and Harlan M. Krumholz
JAMA. 2006;295(14):1675-1680.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
